lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: wake_up_process implied memory barrier clarification
On 09/01, Boqun Feng wrote:
>
> But I'm still a little confused at Oleg's words:
>
> "What is really important is that we have a barrier before we _read_ the
> task state."
>
> I read is as "What is really important is that we have a barrier before
> we _read_ the task state and _after_ we write the CONDITION", if I don't
> misunderstand Oleg, this means a STORE-barrier-LOAD sequence,

Yes, exactly.

Let's look at this trivial code again,

CONDITION = 1;
wake_up_process();

note that try_to_wake_up() does

if (!(p->state & state))
goto out;

If this LOAD could be reordered with STORE(CONDITION) above we can obviously
race with

set_current_state(...);
if (!CONDITION)
schedule();

See the comment at the start of try_to_wake_up(). And again, again, please
note that initially the only documented behaviour of smp_mb__before_spinlock()
was the STORE - LOAD serialization. This is what try_to_wake_up() needs, it
doesn't actually need the write barrier after STORE(CONDITION).

And just in case, wake_up() differs in a sense that it doesn't even need
that STORE-LOAD barrier in try_to_wake_up(), we can rely on
wait_queue_head_t->lock. Assuming that wake_up() pairs with the "normal"
wait_event()-like code.

> which IIUC
> can't pair with anything.

It pairs with the barrier implied by set_current_state().

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-01 12:21    [W:0.112 / U:0.920 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site